Hzoron.— On Geological Structure of Canterbury Mountains. 887 
Fortunately the evidence before us will remain there for all time to come 
(not geologically speaking), and our successors will be best able to judge 
what is really the truth, which we all ought earnestly to strive to discover. 
Arr. XLIL.—Note on Geological Structure of the Canterbury Mountains, 
By Dr. Hxcror, Director of the Geological Survey of New Zealand. 
[Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 13th February, 1885.] 
Tue following note is an abstract of a paper that will appear in the Geo- 
logical Reports in reply to a recent paper by Professor von Haast*, which 
impugns the correctness of a small sketch map of the geology of New 
Zealand, which I issued in 1883. 
The chief, or rather almost the only geological contention in the paper 
referred to is that there is no evidence known to Dr. von Haast that 
warrants the subdivision of his Mount Torlesse formation, of which 
he says “the greatest portion of the Provincial District of Canterbury 
is composed.” This formation he maintains to be of Lower Carboni- 
ferous or Upper Devonian age: Firstly, because certain fossils which he 
discovered in 1861 at Mount Potts, comprising fossil shells and saurian 
bones were by Professor McCoy, of Melbourne University, pronounced to 
belong to that horizon: Secondly, fossil plants which he obtained at the 
same time from the Clent Hills, twelve miles from Mount Potts, are stated 
to have been referred by the same distinguished paleontologist to a Jurassic 
formation: and Thirdly, both animal and plant fossils from these localities 
are stated on Professor MeCoy's authority to be “ identical with exuvie 
found in the coal-fields of New South Wales.” 
Unfortunately, I am unable to refer to the wording of Professor McCoy’s 
deliverance on this matter, as it has never been published, so far as Iam 
aware. If, however, it is true that fossils among which were saurian bones 
were really sent to Professor McCoy in 1861, and he felt compelled to refer 
them to a Devonian or Lower Carboniferous formation, I cannot but think 
that such a renowned master in paleontology would have long since em- 
phatically enforced such an important discovery, for, as geologists are aware, 
even to this day the earliest trace of a saurian is only found in Permian 
formations. | 
However, in a paper published in 1879,+ which has perhaps escaped 
Dr. von Haast's notice, I pointed out, after personal inspection, that the 
ee ME DEMEURE Uo Lea 
* Art. xli., ante. : 
+ Trans. Roy. Soc. N.S.W., 1879, and abstracts in Prog. Rept. N.Z. Geol, Surv., 1879. 
22 
